Sprocket's New Home

[j2k4]

Originally posted by RGX+29 April 2004 - 05:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX &#064; 29 April 2004 - 05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Tormentor@29 April 2004 - 05:39
May I ask what the point is to getting your temps really really low? Wouldnt your comp perform the same with higher temps then it would with lower temps? Or are you planning on doin a crazy overclock?

Its a tweaking thing. The funs in seeing how far you can push it, I beleive once clocker has got as far as he can go he&#39;ll be very dissapointed and probably move on to the next thing. As hobbes says, the search for the grail is more important (and fun) than the grail itself.[/b][/quote]
True enough, though I don&#39;t think Clocker will ever do anything "crazy", as his methodology doesn&#39;t allow foolishness.

While I haven&#39;t built my PC yet, I would do mine the same way: Test, Test, Test&#33;

I would look forward to actually using mine, but Clocker is finding out where the barriers are and developing a wide-ranging fund of practical knowledge along the way.

I would say he&#39;s pretty knowledgable for someone who basically didn&#39;t know what a PC was 18 months ago; I think everyone here would agree.

I admire his work and discipline in achieving his results, because I went to the same "school" as he did.

As to the question "is cooler better?", I would think the answer would go something like this:

Under stress or heavy workload, "cooler is always better" in terms of both performance and reliability/durability.

Somebody please correct me if I&#39;m wrong or refine my assertion if needed?

[j2k4]

And Clocker?

Don&#39;t get a big head, or I&#39;ll tell everyone you actually admired the case on my Dell.

[clocker]

Thanks j2, that pretty much sums it up.
Tormentor,
To elaborate a bit....

Having always been mechanically inclined, soon after acquiring my first PC the urge to open it up ( and void the warrenty, of course) was irrististable.

I was shocked and appallled by the apparently random and undisciplined method of construction. It offended my sensibilities and I began to "improve" upon it.

When first you build your own PC you will quickly discover that half of the aftermarket products flat out don&#39;t work as promised or really are irrelevant.
Thus I began a quest to separate the wheat from the chaff, performance-wise.

It is true that I am by no means a "power-user" of the computer.
This is an almost purely intellectual exercise. What would at first blush appear to be a resonable or intuitively correct application, frequently turns out to be a dead end or even detrimental to performance.
The trick is to be methodical and critical in one&#39;s evaluation.

All too often, neither of these conditions are employed in reviews of products or the recommendations of fanboys.

In a perfect world I could figure out a way to actually make some money in the pursuit of this knowlege, but alas, I have not, so for now I simply enjoy the reward of sharing what I have learned with other interested defectives.

May I ask what the point is to getting your temps really really low? Wouldnt your comp perform the same with higher temps then it would with lower temps? Or are you planning on doin a crazy overclock?

Yes, to a reasonable extent your equipment will operate just fine within a fairly large range of temp, but only by exploring the extremes can you generalize the norm...
BTW...ALL overclocking is "crazy".
Not a single person on this board "needs" to tweak their equipment.
We can all walk out of CompUSA with machines that were undreampt of ten years ago, and technology ( as applied to the consumer market) is ever rushing beyond the borders of the "possible" into the realm of the magical.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@29 April 2004 - 06:50
Thanks j2, that pretty much sums it up.
Tormentor,
To elaborate a bit....

Having always been mechanically inclined, soon after acquiring my first PC the urge to open it up ( and void the warrenty, of course) was irrististable.

I was shocked and appallled by the apparently random and undisciplined method of construction. It offended my sensibilities and I began to "improve" upon it.

When first you build your own PC you will quickly discover that half of the aftermarket products flat out don&#39;t work as promised or really are irrelevant.
Thus I began a quest to separate the wheat from the chaff, performance-wise.

It is true that I am by no means a "power-user" of the computer.
This is an almost purely intellectual exercise. What would at first blush appear to be a resonable or intuitively correct application, frequently turns out to be a dead end or even detrimental to performance.
The trick is to be methodical and critical in one&#39;s evaluation.

All too often, neither of these conditions are employed in reviews of products or the recommendations of fanboys.

In a perfect world I could figure out a way to actually make some money in the pursuit of this knowlege, but alas, I have not, so for now I simply enjoy the reward of sharing what I have learned with other interested defectives.

May I ask what the point is to getting your temps really really low? Wouldnt your comp perform the same with higher temps then it would with lower temps? Or are you planning on doin a crazy overclock?

Yes, to a reasonable extent your equipment will operate just fine within a fairly large range of temp, but only by exploring the extremes can you generalize the norm...
BTW...ALL overclocking is "crazy".
Not a single person on this board "needs" to tweak their equipment.
We can all walk out of CompUSA with machines that were undreampt of ten years ago, and technology ( as applied to the consumer market) is ever rushing beyond the borders of the "possible" into the realm of the magical.

Too snooty.

Please re-formulate and re-post.

B)

[clocker]

F*uck off, Republican.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@29 April 2004 - 07:59
F*uck off, Republican.

Just so-

BTW-Excellent job of obscuring the word through cunning use of the *.

I honestly had to look twice to be sure what it said.

Well done.

[Virtualbody1234]

Originally posted by j2k4+29 April 2004 - 08:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 April 2004 - 08:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@29 April 2004 - 07:59
F*uck off, Republican.

Just so-

BTW-Excellent job of obscuring the word through cunning use of the *.

I honestly had to look twice to be sure what it said.

Well done. [/b][/quote]
Was there something I was supposed to see but didn&#39;t?
Hmmm... Disguised by a *. B)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Virtualbody1234+29 April 2004 - 08:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Virtualbody1234 &#064; 29 April 2004 - 08:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by j2k4@29 April 2004 - 08:11
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker

@29 April 2004 - 07:59
F*uck off, Republican.

Just so-

BTW-Excellent job of obscuring the word through cunning use of the *.

I honestly had to look twice to be sure what it said.

Well done.

Was there something I was supposed to see but didn&#39;t?
Hmmm... Disguised by a *. B)[/b][/quote]
Yes, Vb-

Phonetically it would be eff-splat-uck; however, as accomplished as I am, I have never known what that actually means.

I am also given to understand that to say eff-apostrophe-uck is considered high-falutin&#39;, and is never done except in the privacy of one&#39;s own drawing room, and then only amongst close friends possessed of discretion.

[clocker]

Admittedly, I was pandering to the hoi polloi.

[j2k4]

Hoi hoi&#33;